African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 158 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15106585
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. There can be a group that investigates crime but has no weapons or powers to arrest people.


How would that work if an armed criminal refuses to cooperate? And how would you arrest criminals anyway?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Why does the USA have such a high level of brutality and killings by police?


I provided a possible explanation, one particularly relevant for large cities (and some suburbs too). The high quantity of guns in the hands of civilians is also part of the mix, probably.
#15106587
@wat0n

1. An officer of the court can mail them a warrant, or send them an email, telling them they are expected at court on a given day. People who do not comply can have their assets frozen or other forms of leverage. If I cna come up with feasible options off the top of my head, I am sure that community activists and criminologists are even better equipped.

2, What explanation did you provide?
#15106589
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. An officer of the court can mail them a warrant, or send them an email, telling them they are expected at court on a given day. People who do not comply can have their assets frozen or other forms of leverage. If I cna come up with feasible options off the top of my head, I am sure that community activists and criminologists are even better equipped.


What happens with people who are out of the formal banking system or who work informally? Do you have any examples of that working out?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2, What explanation did you provide?


The effects of gang activity and general gun ownership. I don't think there's much one can do about the latter though.
#15106592
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. A solution can be found. The point is that abolition of police is more practical than ither opti9ns in terms of addressing systemic racism and police brutality.


That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Is the explanation verified by evidence?


I would say so. Compare the situation in the US with countries that have more serious problems with an already armed population or gang/narco violence. Brazil for instance could fall into this category - and police killings are quite a bit more extended than in the US.
#15106599
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I would say that making no significant changes, and then expecting significantly different outcomes, is wishful thinking.


Ending or at least softening the War on Drugs and strengthening anti-poverty policies would not be significant changes?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Then please present the evidence.


OK. You can consider the case of Brazil and the Primeiro Comando da Capital in Sao Paulo as an example.
#15106601
wat0n wrote:Ending or at least softening the War on Drugs and strengthening anti-poverty policies would not be significant changes?


Not really, no.

These do not address systemic racism in policing.
These do not address policies like the three strikes law, or racial profiling.
These do not address police brutality or killings.
These do not deal with militarisation of police.
These do not deal with the blue code of silence or culture of impunity.
These do not deal with the current lack of effective monitoring.

OK. You can consider the case of Brazil and the Primeiro Comando da Capital in Sao Paulo as an example.


I assume that you would like me to read that article, then find the relevant text, and then figure out for myself how that supports your claim for you, then critically analyse this relationship between the text and the argument and the greater world and explain the problems?
#15106603
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not really, no.

These do not address systemic racism in policing.
These do not address policies like the three strikes law, or racial profiling.
These do not address police brutality or killings.
These do not deal with militarisation of police.
These do not deal with the blue code of silence or culture of impunity.
These do not deal with the current lack of effective monitoring.


Are you done with the emotional outburst? How exactly don't they address the issue of crime, and thereby reduce the need for heavy policing such as the three strikes law or the militarization of police? The other stuff would be addressed by more monitoring, such as that by bodycams.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I assume that you would like me to read that article, then find the relevant text, and then figure out for myself how that supports your claim for you, then critically analyse this relationship between the text and the argument and the greater world and explain the problems?


That would be nice, but even the headline would be enough: Back in 2012, Sao Paulo had to deal with increased gang activity (even a war between the gangs and the police) as a result of a breakdown of a tacit peace that had been established between both.
#15106604
@wat0n

1. If you wish to believe I am being emotional, go ahead.

Please note that even if I was as hysterical as you assume, your proposed policies would not address the issues I listed.

If you wish to make the claim that these would be indirectly addressed somehow by your policies, please explain how.

Also, note that abolition of police addresses all of these issues.

2. I hope you understand why I am going to only critically analyse this relationship between the text and the argument and the greater world and explain the problems of your claims, while allowing you to read that article, then find the relevant text, and then figure out how that supports your claim for you, and then write that out for the rest of us.
#15106605
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. If you wish to believe I am being emotional, go ahead.

Please note that even if I was as hysterical as you assume, your proposed policies would not address the issues I listed.

If you wish to make the claim that these would be indirectly addressed somehow by your policies, please explain how.

Also, note that abolition of police addresses all of these issues.


I think I've explained plenty. Police abolition would not address one other basic problem: The activities of organized crime, which is something we cannot expect communities to solve on their own.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I hope you understand why I am going to only critically analyse this relationship between the text and the argument and the greater world and explain the problems of your claims, while allowing you to read that article, then find the relevant text, and then figure out how that supports your claim for you, and then write that out for the rest of us.


I think the whole article is a good example of what I'm referring to.
#15106606
@wat0n

1. While there may be some indirect reductions for some of these issues, all of these issues will still exist to some degree if only minor reforms are made. And please note that making these minor changes will not get rid of organised crime either.

This does seem like a good time to repeat that the liberated funds would go to address the root causes of crime, which would substantially reduce the level of organised crime.

2. I hope you understand why I will not be addressing your argument at this point; i.e. because it is not my responsibility to do the work for your argument for you.
#15106608
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. While there may be some indirect reductions for some of these issues, all of these issues will still exist to some degree if only minor reforms are made. And please note that making these minor changes will not get rid of organised crime either.

This does seem like a good time to repeat that the liberated funds would go to address the root causes of crime, which would substantially reduce the level of organised crime.


How would you dissolve the organized crime syndicates (aka gangs) without a significant police action? Also, what makes you believe that defunding the police would help to address issues such as drug illegalization or that it's enough to make any significant dent on poverty? At last, since it's unlikely there will be a full elimination of all issues around crime and also around policing (not even countries like Switzerland have done so), it would be silly to demand so. But those reforms, that are far from being minor, would likely help quite a bit - just like they helped to deal with the 1920s and 1930s Mafia.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. I hope you understand why I will not be addressing your argument at this point; i.e. because it is not my responsibility to do the work for your argument for you.


No, but it is your responsibility to even read the article. I don't see why would I quote it all if it's not necessary.
#15106648
@wat0n

1. Police abolition does not need to address drug legalisation or poverty. No one ever said it had to. It is supposed to address the list of issues I just mentioned. In terms of the issues I mentioned, the reforms you cite are minor, even if they are radical reforms in other contexts.

This does seem like a good time to repeat that the liberated funds would go to address the root causes of crime, which would substantially reduce the level of organised crime, and the gangs would dissolve themselves since no one would think it was a good option to join them.

2. Again, I a, not going to do your work for you,
#15106653
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Police abolition does not need to address drug legalisation or poverty. No one ever said it had to. It is supposed to address the list of issues I just mentioned. In terms of the issues I mentioned, the reforms you cite are minor, even if they are radical reforms in other contexts.

This does seem like a good time to repeat that the liberated funds would go to address the root causes of crime, which would substantially reduce the level of organised crime, and the gangs would dissolve themselves since no one would think it was a good option to join them.


What makes you believe the funds necessary to that effect would be enough and also that gang activity would become less profitable without cops around? If anything it may as well become MORE profitable, since they would have more room to engage in all sorts of activities.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Again, I a, not going to do your work for you,


Neither will I read the sources for you.
#15106670
@Pants-of-dog and yet if gangs became more profitable, they would be in a better condition to compete for their goons. Also, how could businesses develop if they are being subject to a racket? Have you considered that maybe part of their problems is that high crime and insecurity depress community investment and general commercial activity?
#15106734
@wat0n

Since the idea that they will become more profitable is pure speculation on your part, I am not concerned. Like your other speculations, it seems to be based in the idea that there would be absolutely nothing to prevent or deal with crime. This is an incorrect assumtpion.
  • 1
  • 156
  • 157
  • 158
  • 159
  • 160
  • 199
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]